5 ms·

So do %s/trickle-down/supply-side/g , then, if it's the term that's bothering you. Doesn't "debunking" trickle-down economics then, by extension, debunk supply

So do %s/trickle-down/supply-side/g , then, if it's the term that's bothering you. Doesn't "debunking" trickle-down economics then, by extension, debunk supply-side economics? I'm not clear on the meaningful difference

manlymuppet 1mo ago
I don't know regex, but to be clear: trickle-down economics and supply-side economics are very different things. I don't blame you for conflating them since they are intentionally very confusing. One is a policy and the other is basically the name of a common criticism for that policy. For example, the Cartesian circle does not refer to any of the many mathematical advancements Rene Descartes discovered. Instead, it's the name of a common criticism for an argument he made. You can think of it like that.
- liveoneggs 1mo ago
  You just said trick-down wasn't a real thing so how can you say it's different from supply-side?
  - manlymuppet 1mo ago
    By "not real" I mean it's not a real policy. They are different in that one is a policy and the other is not.
    - liveoneggs 1mo ago
      how about this - Trickle Down is the implementation of Supply Side theory
      - manlymuppet 1mo ago
        Yeah I think that's also very inaccurate. Supply-side theory is not about indiscriminately taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich.
- odo1242 1mo ago
  I mean, one is a name of a policy used by supporters, and the other is another name of the same policy used by critics? Name an actual difference?
  - manlymuppet 1mo ago
    One is a policy. The other is not a policy. I can name you differences, but it's like comparing apples and oranges.
    - bena 1mo ago
      Name one that is not "one's a policy and the other is not".
    - odo1242 1mo ago
      You can't call "trickle-down economics" a strawman without actually naming what is different between it and "supply-side economics". Otherwise I have to assume that people are just calling the same policy by two different names. Like how proponents of DRM call it "Digital Rights Management" and critics call it "Digital Restrictions Management" but both people are referring to the same technology. tl;dr: If you could name me differences you would name me differences
      - manlymuppet 1mo ago
        My above comment helps with the distinction. If you missed it: """ I think supply-side economics deserves more nuance than simply thinking we need to make the tax rate arbitrarily low. The Laffer curve isn't the only thing you should look at, since where you tax can be just as important as how much you tax. Take corporate taxes for example. If one were to advocate to get rid of corporate taxes, you might think that person unabashedly biased. What kind of person would want to give breaks to the richest people (corporations) when everyday people are the most in need of those kind of cuts, right? But the reality is that when you tax corporations, that is one of the most economically damaging taxes you can do. How about then, rather than taxing corporations, you tax the benefactors of those corporations directly? When you tax Walmart, sure you tax the C-suite, but you also make it so that Walmart can hire less people, and invest less in the economy. Rather than taxing the corporation, what if you just taxed the C-suite directly? Tax the Walton family, or the highest earning employees directly, and you get to have your cake and it too since you get similar amounts of tax revenue without damaging the economy nearly as much. You'll see this often in the social democracies of Scandinavia, like Sweden or Denmark. These are countries with strong welfare states, and yet, the corporate tax rates are often lower than the U.S., even if you look at the most red states. This is supply side economics at work, and an example of how supply-side economics can be easily misrepresented. """
- bena 1mo ago
  What's the actual difference, because you haven't actually supplied one. You've just said "They're different. One is a thing, and one is a criticism of a thing". So, does the criticism not hold value? Because a large part of "supply-side economics", a term coined in the 70s, is reduction of taxes and regulations. With the idea that that extra capital will then be used to create jobs. And if that is not what's happening, then I don't care about the semantics of whether or not "trickle-down" is the appropriate term of art to be applied here. The core concept of "giving rich people more money spurs job growth" is apparently false.
  - TitaRusell 1mo ago
    It has worked though. This policy created millions of jobs in China, Cambodja and Mexico. The mistake that Republicans made is thinking that the nobles are loyal to the kingdom instead of their own personal greed.
    - smallmancontrov 1mo ago
      Tilting the scale towards capital is a good idea when capital is the limiting factor on economic growth. A dollar invested rather than consumed brings two dollars in a few years time. Here's the thing: this is only really true in developing economies because, well, they develop. Inevitably, the amount of available capital outgrows the available investment opportunities. Expected rates of return and interest rates fall. At this point, subsidizing capital is every bit as foolish as subsidizing demand in any other ~fixed supply market. However, the enormous incentive to pretend otherwise remains. Foolish: policies that favor capital are good Smart: let's check interest rates to see if policies that favor capital are good
- jibal 1mo ago
  > I don't know regex You know enough about it to misidentify that obvious string replacement command as an example of it. Your comments are incoherent and disingenuous. Saying that trickle down economics is "an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics" is very much saying that they refer to the same thing ... and it's the thing they refer to that TFA argues only helps the rich. You say that "the policies of supply-side economics, however, are much more defensible" but you offer no defense, and no rebuttal to TFA. > For example, the Cartesian circle does not refer to any of the many mathematical advancements Rene Descartes discovered. Instead, it's the name of a common criticism for an argument he made. This is the most inept attempt at an analogy that I can recall seeing. I have a thing about people who act in bad faith, or argue so ineptly that it looks like it ... I won't be responding further.
  - manlymuppet 1mo ago
    > You know enough about it to misidentify that obvious string replacement command as an example of it. I figured the syntax was like an either-or thing, but I wasn't sure. > Saying that trickle down economics is 'an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics' is very much saying that they refer to the same thing... I don't think it is. What I'm _not_ trying to say is that trickle-down economics is a nickname for supply-side economics. More, trickle-down economics is a strawman. Not the same thing or a different name, but an inaccurate version--a caricature which doesn't even resemble policy. Also I'm not sure what "TFA" stands for. > This is the most inept attempt at an analogy that I can recall seeing. It was kind of rough. Regardless of the incompetence of my arguments though, I promise I am not being intentionally dense. I really do try to act in good faith here on HN, and I'd appreciate it if I could hear more of your perspective and continue this civilly.

manlymuppet 1mo ago

I don't know regex, but to be clear: trickle-down economics and supply-side economics are very different things. I don't blame you for conflating them since they are intentionally very confusing. One is a policy and the other is basically the name of a common criticism for that policy. For example, the Cartesian circle does not refer to any of the many mathematical advancements Rene Descartes discovered. Instead, it's the name of a common criticism for an argument he made. You can think of it like that.

liveoneggs 1mo ago
You just said trick-down wasn't a real thing so how can you say it's different from supply-side?
- manlymuppet 1mo ago
  By "not real" I mean it's not a real policy. They are different in that one is a policy and the other is not.
  - liveoneggs 1mo ago
    how about this - Trickle Down is the implementation of Supply Side theory
    - manlymuppet 1mo ago
      Yeah I think that's also very inaccurate. Supply-side theory is not about indiscriminately taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich.
odo1242 1mo ago
I mean, one is a name of a policy used by supporters, and the other is another name of the same policy used by critics? Name an actual difference?
- manlymuppet 1mo ago
  One is a policy. The other is not a policy. I can name you differences, but it's like comparing apples and oranges.
  - bena 1mo ago
    Name one that is not "one's a policy and the other is not".
  - odo1242 1mo ago
    You can't call "trickle-down economics" a strawman without actually naming what is different between it and "supply-side economics". Otherwise I have to assume that people are just calling the same policy by two different names. Like how proponents of DRM call it "Digital Rights Management" and critics call it "Digital Restrictions Management" but both people are referring to the same technology. tl;dr: If you could name me differences you would name me differences
    - manlymuppet 1mo ago
      My above comment helps with the distinction. If you missed it: """ I think supply-side economics deserves more nuance than simply thinking we need to make the tax rate arbitrarily low. The Laffer curve isn't the only thing you should look at, since where you tax can be just as important as how much you tax. Take corporate taxes for example. If one were to advocate to get rid of corporate taxes, you might think that person unabashedly biased. What kind of person would want to give breaks to the richest people (corporations) when everyday people are the most in need of those kind of cuts, right? But the reality is that when you tax corporations, that is one of the most economically damaging taxes you can do. How about then, rather than taxing corporations, you tax the benefactors of those corporations directly? When you tax Walmart, sure you tax the C-suite, but you also make it so that Walmart can hire less people, and invest less in the economy. Rather than taxing the corporation, what if you just taxed the C-suite directly? Tax the Walton family, or the highest earning employees directly, and you get to have your cake and it too since you get similar amounts of tax revenue without damaging the economy nearly as much. You'll see this often in the social democracies of Scandinavia, like Sweden or Denmark. These are countries with strong welfare states, and yet, the corporate tax rates are often lower than the U.S., even if you look at the most red states. This is supply side economics at work, and an example of how supply-side economics can be easily misrepresented. """
bena 1mo ago
What's the actual difference, because you haven't actually supplied one. You've just said "They're different. One is a thing, and one is a criticism of a thing". So, does the criticism not hold value? Because a large part of "supply-side economics", a term coined in the 70s, is reduction of taxes and regulations. With the idea that that extra capital will then be used to create jobs. And if that is not what's happening, then I don't care about the semantics of whether or not "trickle-down" is the appropriate term of art to be applied here. The core concept of "giving rich people more money spurs job growth" is apparently false.
- TitaRusell 1mo ago
  It has worked though. This policy created millions of jobs in China, Cambodja and Mexico. The mistake that Republicans made is thinking that the nobles are loyal to the kingdom instead of their own personal greed.
  - smallmancontrov 1mo ago
    Tilting the scale towards capital is a good idea when capital is the limiting factor on economic growth. A dollar invested rather than consumed brings two dollars in a few years time. Here's the thing: this is only really true in developing economies because, well, they develop. Inevitably, the amount of available capital outgrows the available investment opportunities. Expected rates of return and interest rates fall. At this point, subsidizing capital is every bit as foolish as subsidizing demand in any other ~fixed supply market. However, the enormous incentive to pretend otherwise remains. Foolish: policies that favor capital are good Smart: let's check interest rates to see if policies that favor capital are good
jibal 1mo ago
> I don't know regex You know enough about it to misidentify that obvious string replacement command as an example of it. Your comments are incoherent and disingenuous. Saying that trickle down economics is "an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics" is very much saying that they refer to the same thing ... and it's the thing they refer to that TFA argues only helps the rich. You say that "the policies of supply-side economics, however, are much more defensible" but you offer no defense, and no rebuttal to TFA. > For example, the Cartesian circle does not refer to any of the many mathematical advancements Rene Descartes discovered. Instead, it's the name of a common criticism for an argument he made. This is the most inept attempt at an analogy that I can recall seeing. I have a thing about people who act in bad faith, or argue so ineptly that it looks like it ... I won't be responding further.
- manlymuppet 1mo ago
  > You know enough about it to misidentify that obvious string replacement command as an example of it. I figured the syntax was like an either-or thing, but I wasn't sure. > Saying that trickle down economics is 'an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics' is very much saying that they refer to the same thing... I don't think it is. What I'm _not_ trying to say is that trickle-down economics is a nickname for supply-side economics. More, trickle-down economics is a strawman. Not the same thing or a different name, but an inaccurate version--a caricature which doesn't even resemble policy. Also I'm not sure what "TFA" stands for. > This is the most inept attempt at an analogy that I can recall seeing. It was kind of rough. Regardless of the incompetence of my arguments though, I promise I am not being intentionally dense. I really do try to act in good faith here on HN, and I'd appreciate it if I could hear more of your perspective and continue this civilly.